[PATCH 2 of 2] discovery: properly filter changeset in 'peer.known' (issue4982)

[Pierre-Yves David]

On 12/06/2015 01:04 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Pierre-Yves David
> <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org <mailto:pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org>>
> wrote:
>
>     # HG changeset patch
>     # User Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at fb.com
>     <mailto:pierre-yves.david at fb.com>>
>     # Date 1449101535 28800
>     #      Wed Dec 02 16:12:15 2015 -0800
>     # Node ID cce8d1dfcefa5495af7900ea5cff796691ca6d07
>     # Parent  179e1f468d683a1b9e7e8df76af0690b454c4025
>     # EXP-Topic fixknown
>     # Available At http://hg.netv6.net/marmoute-wip/mercurial/
>     #              hg pull http://hg.netv6.net/marmoute-wip/mercurial/
>     -r cce8d1dfcefa
>     discovery: properly filter changeset in 'peer.known' (issue4982)
>
>
> This should be marked BC because it changes semantics of the "known"
> wire protocol command. (The new semantics make sense to me modulo the
> bug described below.)

Meh, this is fixing a bug in a wire protocol command that only affects 
people using an experimental extensions. I do not think it deserve any 
special flagging.

[...]
>     diff --git a/mercurial/localrepo.py b/mercurial/localrepo.py
>     --- a/mercurial/localrepo.py
>     +++ b/mercurial/localrepo.py
>     @@ -806,16 +806,17 @@ class localrepository(object):
>
>               repo = (remote and remote.local()) and remote or self
>               return repo[key].branch()
>
>           def known(self, nodes):
>     -        nm = self.changelog.nodemap
>     -        pc = self._phasecache
>     +        cl = self.filtered('served').changelog
>
>
> hgweb supports specifying the filter to serve with. Therefore, I believe
> manually specifying a filter here is wrong, as a server started with `hg
> --hidden serve` won't expose hidden changesets even though you told it
> to. (This also likely points to a gap in test coverage.)
>
> Why can't you simply use self.changelog? wireproto.py should be
> operating on a repo instance with the appropriate filter (if any)
> already in place.


Ha, nice catch, I got a bit over zealous here. I've sending a V2 with 
the filtering call dropped.


-- 
Pierre-Yves David